4 ms·

> I really hate how electronic voting machines instant tally elections. I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor

> I really hate how electronic voting machines instant tally elections. I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. > I shouldn't have to trust people. Verification systems are great (I fully endorse the electronic-for-convenience-backed-by-paper system), but ALL systems require that you trust people. The key is to have sufficient verification, both instant and later, to make fraud difficult, detectable, and provable.

specialist 8y ago
The only trust worthy system is built on mutual distrust. Please sign up to be a poll worker. Then you'll see first hand how it works.
- ergothus 8y ago
  I generally agree with your statement about trust systems - but my point is that we have to end up trusting a lot of people anyway, even if it is a matter of trusting the people that design the systems. I can't verify everything about my life and still have it. So we need to design not only based on mistrust, but also include post-facto verification systems so if questions are raised we can go back and apply the distrust we were too busy to do originally. I was going to say that I can't sign up as a poll-worker because I'm in a mail-in-ballot state, but it appears I'm wrong. I'll look into that - it's definitely an accessible (for me) form of civic service. Thanks for the suggestion!
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    The core difference is that if you trust, say, 5 people. You can quietly send them to 5 random polling stations and get them to relay back what happened. Basically even the extremely conspiratorial can trust the election if there are observers that can be there from start to finish. Saying "just trust our government's employees" is not a real solution.
sandworm101 8y ago
>I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. Note that the above poster was talking about Ontario. Canada has a different relationship with election results. It is illegal for Canadian results, including entrance/exit polls, to be announced prior to closing. In the US this would be seen as a radical freedom of speech issue. In Canada it is normal. In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. US politicians also regularly concede defeat based on preliminary results. So someone fiddling with the display of preliminary electronic results can, in the US, directly impact the final tally. That isn't a thing in Canada. We don't expect to know anything until after polls close. So we have no need of "instant" tallies. Counting happens during the day but results are not published. Electronic voting might speed it up a little bit, but never would we get close to the instant feedback possible in the US.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. Is it? I was under the impression that most everyone had adopted a voluntary policy of not reporting exit polls prior to closing, at least since 1980, so that's just shy of 40 years of not doing as you describe. I've certainly been ignorant of results until polls close. I recall estimations of "turnout by party" and "what issues motivated you" prior to closing, but not how people ended up voting. > It certainly doesn't have anything to do with entertainment. How do you think the OP meant about the "normally fun nail biting" experience that is electronic voting "ruined" by ending "in a single minute"?

specialist 8y ago

The only trust worthy system is built on mutual distrust. Please sign up to be a poll worker. Then you'll see first hand how it works.

ergothus 8y ago
I generally agree with your statement about trust systems - but my point is that we have to end up trusting a lot of people anyway, even if it is a matter of trusting the people that design the systems. I can't verify everything about my life and still have it. So we need to design not only based on mistrust, but also include post-facto verification systems so if questions are raised we can go back and apply the distrust we were too busy to do originally. I was going to say that I can't sign up as a poll-worker because I'm in a mail-in-ballot state, but it appears I'm wrong. I'll look into that - it's definitely an accessible (for me) form of civic service. Thanks for the suggestion!
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  The core difference is that if you trust, say, 5 people. You can quietly send them to 5 random polling stations and get them to relay back what happened. Basically even the extremely conspiratorial can trust the election if there are observers that can be there from start to finish. Saying "just trust our government's employees" is not a real solution.

sandworm101 8y ago

>I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. Note that the above poster was talking about Ontario. Canada has a different relationship with election results. It is illegal for Canadian results, including entrance/exit polls, to be announced prior to closing. In the US this would be seen as a radical freedom of speech issue. In Canada it is normal. In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. US politicians also regularly concede defeat based on preliminary results. So someone fiddling with the display of preliminary electronic results can, in the US, directly impact the final tally. That isn't a thing in Canada. We don't expect to know anything until after polls close. So we have no need of "instant" tallies. Counting happens during the day but results are not published. Electronic voting might speed it up a little bit, but never would we get close to the instant feedback possible in the US.

ergothus 8y ago
> In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. Is it? I was under the impression that most everyone had adopted a voluntary policy of not reporting exit polls prior to closing, at least since 1980, so that's just shy of 40 years of not doing as you describe. I've certainly been ignorant of results until polls close. I recall estimations of "turnout by party" and "what issues motivated you" prior to closing, but not how people ended up voting. > It certainly doesn't have anything to do with entertainment. How do you think the OP meant about the "normally fun nail biting" experience that is electronic voting "ruined" by ending "in a single minute"?